This article canvasses the key Australian exclusionary rules and discretions to exclude evidence under both the common law and its statutory counterparts in the Uniform Evidence Legislation now in effect in the Commonwealth, Victoria, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania. In examining these exclusionary rules and discretions, an analysis is made as to whether evidence derived from primary evidence excluded under one or more of these rules should also be excluded under an American style 'fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine' - and why or why not. Finally, the article compares the current Australian approach to this doctrine with the present state of the American doctrine and the recognised exceptions thereto. The article concludes with recommendations for applying the doctrine in both countries, subject to suggested changes in the Jaw that take the realities of political correctness and human frailty into account.
Field of Research
180110 Criminal Law and Procedure
Socio Economic Objective
970118 Expanding Knowledge in Law and Legal Studies
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.
Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO.
If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact email@example.com.